Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
cuda1179 wrote: Good characters should be written as good characters first, then cast them as such. Sometimes it's a bit suspicious that they wanted a (insert person of this variety), now make it work no matter how convoluted.
I will readily admit that there are many characters out there where race is a non issue. Want to recast Jesus as Black, no problems from me. Now if you recast Storm from the X-Men as japanese, that wouldn't work. There are some strong character archs where being African is paramount.
Someone like Blade however? There is nothing in his background that would necessitate him being Black. Recast him with Jet Li and theoretically it works, but it would still piss a few people off.
White washing is a concern because, traditionally, there just haven’t been a great many roles for minorities in Hollywood.
One example of this would be the career of Ke Huy Quan. Starred in two pretty big movies (Temple of Doom, The Goonies). Then? The roles dried up, because nobody was casting young Asian men.
Just pop yourself in his shoes. You’re clearly a talented actor, with a promising career. Not only are roles you’re (and I feel icky typing this, but seemingly I cannot word good this morning) “ethnically suitable for” thin on the ground, but some are casting white dudes instead, further reducing opportunity. And at that time, if the role wasn’t written as “young Asian man” you’ve no chance.
Things are improving. But we can’t deny the past, or that more works remains to be done.
As I’ve bought up before in other threads, I’m noticeably sensitive about my accent. And it pisses me right off when someone butchers the Scots accent in a role. As such things go, and in the grand scheme of things, that is a relatively petty complaint of course. But it’s still my brush with the subject matter. Indeed, one of the things I enjoyed about Rings of Power was the Scots accents on display were really really good. To the point I didn’t know the actors weren’t Scottish until I looked them up on Wikipedia.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
cuda1179 wrote: Good characters should be written as good characters first, then cast them as such. Sometimes it's a bit suspicious that they wanted a (insert person of this variety), now make it work no matter how convoluted.
I will readily admit that there are many characters out there where race is a non issue. Want to recast Jesus as Black, no problems from me. Now if you recast Storm from the X-Men as japanese, that wouldn't work. There are some strong character archs where being African is paramount.
Someone like Blade however? There is nothing in his background that would necessitate him being Black. Recast him with Jet Li and theoretically it works, but it would still piss a few people off.
White washing is a concern because, traditionally, there just haven’t been a great many roles for minorities in Hollywood.
One example of this would be the career of Ke Huy Quan. Starred in two pretty big movies (Temple of Doom, The Goonies). Then? The roles dried up, because nobody was casting young Asian men.
Just pop yourself in his shoes. You’re clearly a talented actor, with a promising career. Not only are roles you’re (and I feel icky typing this, but seemingly I cannot word good this morning) “ethnically suitable for” thin on the ground, but some are casting white dudes instead, further reducing opportunity. And at that time, if the role wasn’t written as “young Asian man” you’ve no chance.
Things are improving. But we can’t deny the past, or that more works remains to be done.
As I’ve bought up before in other threads, I’m noticeably sensitive about my accent. And it pisses me right off when someone butchers the Scots accent in a role. As such things go, and in the grand scheme of things, that is a relatively petty complaint of course. But it’s still my brush with the subject matter. Indeed, one of the things I enjoyed about Rings of Power was the Scots accents on display were really really good. To the point I didn’t know the actors weren’t Scottish until I looked them up on Wikipedia.
This raises a question from before: What would you consider perfect "diversity". If people from group A make up 20% of the population, should they make up 20% of any given group? If they don't, is that necessarily bad? What if, in the case of equity, you find out that Group A isn't underrepresented, they are overrepresented. You'll have a situation like with what happened at Google, where they did an internal audit for gender equity, got the reverse results they anticipated, and ended up giving a good portion of their male staff raises. They briefly caught some flak for it. And does diversity work both ways, or only one way? Should traditionally minority/female activities that have served as a haven for them feel pressure to be more inclusive?
I've been on the receiving end of the "you're ruing our group by being here" mentality. Men volunteering for a traditionally female roles with children face particularly harsh backlash from women. Not to mention a book club/wine tasting group I tried to join. Apparently they thought it was unnecessary to put on the fliers that it was women-only.
In general? I just want as close as we can get to Equality Of Opportunity in all things.
Do away with bigotry and prejudice which can unfairly keep people down. Do away with Old Boys Networks, which can unfairly and unjustifiably raised people up.
It is desirable, and in society’s own interests, to make the most of its population and said population’s existing skills and overall potential.
There’s a quote from Moving Pictures, a Discworld novel which I can partially apply here.
You know what the greatest tragedy is in the whole world?... It's all the people who never find out what it is they really want to do or what it is they're really good at. It's all the sons who become blacksmiths because their fathers were blacksmiths. It's all the people who could be really fantastic flute players who grow old and die without ever seeing a musical instrument, so they become bad ploughmen instead. It's all the people with talents who never even find out. Maybe they are never even born in a time when its even possible to find out. It's all the people who never get to know what it is they can really be. It’s all the wasted chances.
We need society to grow and develop beyond prejudice, both negative (Wimmins can’t be X) and positive (Ah the old school tie, welcome aboard!) and let folk stand on their own merits. To be arranged in a way that encourages people to realise their full potential.
No, it’s not a magic bullet. Some folk will still be dealt a relatively losing hand, or play their cards poorly. But we don’t need some people being given decks stacked against or in favour of them by dint of birth.
Now, an author is of course free to write their characters as they see fit. I make no demands that the cast of a novel must be diverse.
But, unless a cultural aspect is essential to a given character? What does the ethnic or cultural background of an actor truly matter, provided they convince in the role.
Now, the cultural aspect is the tricky one. Ultimately, I’ve only ever lived my life. Yes I was born in Scotland, but I’ve lived around 3/4 of my life in South East England. So my definition of Scot’s culture and English culture is going to be different by default from someone who was born and lived their entire life in either country. Even someone with the same background as me may have had very different experiences and influences. So when it comes to say, Scarlett Johansson being cast in Ghost in the Shell’s lead role? Don’t ask me. My opinion is irrelevant. But do listen to those who will have a genuine, personal perspective on the matter.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Yeah, I can get on board with the "let people do what they want, don't be a d-bag" mentality.
About the whole Scarlette Johansson thing and others like it, a friend of mine was totally down with the whole "strait people should not play gay people in movies" that was popular right after Scarlette's "Rub and Tug" fiasco where she was going to play a trans-woman. I just looked at my friend and casually asked, "So, do you think gay people should banned form playing strait people?" Well, no, because that would be silly.
On that, I’d argue there are significant grey areas.
If gay people received equal or indifferent treatment in society, then I could probably agree. But, the simple fact is? They don’t.
Now “give them roles” isn’t a fix as such. But the basic concept of “hmm, maybe a better choice of actor for the role of a minority might….someone of that minority” isn’t a terribly difficult one.
Of course, all we the public tend to see is the end result of the casting process. What we don’t see is who else read for the part. So we can never truly rule out “it went to the best audition”. But if the character is gay, trans or an ethnic minority? Maybe put in extra effort with your casting call to reach that relevant part of society. Don’t just sign up a Big Name for the sake of having a Big Name.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
OK, this is moving slightly away from talking about diversity in Warhammer. And I do agree with you to an extent. Certainly on the ethnicity front - casting should be done with the correct ethnicity when it is relevant, and with diversity in mind when it is not specified.
But also - acting is acting. The whole point of it is pretending to be someone else. If a straight guy can convincingly portray a gay guy, that's fine. And vice versa - look at Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your Mother for instance...
Also - my brother is a reformed thespian, went through a degree in theatre studies at university and a masters in performing arts at a drama school. It was very much his experience that gay people were not under-represented...
Gay roles and gay actors aren’t the same thing though.
The aim of diversity in the arts is as much about visibility as it is inclusion.
Same with Warhammer. Going right back to my original posts in this thread? GW including different ethnicities and orientations in their art, models and books harms no-one, comes at no additional investment cost, and broadens your appeal.
Whether that then leads to more gamers/hobbyists is kind of beside the point. All GW can do is make their offerings as inviting, welcoming and enticing as possible.
Even if those efforts only result in a handful of Weird Internet Man Babies burning their models? I for one don’t count that as a loss of any consequence. But, anecdotally at least, we’ve seen a rising number of lady painters cropping up online. Perhaps they were there all along, and algorithms just didn’t push them. Perhaps from GW’s efforts they feel more comfortable putting themselves forward. Maybe seeing the rising number of lady Stormcast, Eldar, Imperial Guard caused them to give the hobby a second look then take the plunge. As ever, you’ll have to ask the individual!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
The aim of diversity in the arts is as much about visibility as it is inclusion.
Same with Warhammer. Going right back to my original posts in this thread? GW including different ethnicities and orientations in their art, models and books harms no-one, comes at no additional investment cost, and broadens your appeal.
I think it bears repeating that excluding/including actual living people based on their race, sexual orientation etc. is a whole different ballgame than having mere fictional representations of people with diverse identities among other fictional people. Conflating the two is usually at least ill-informed or only superficially thought through, if not outright disingenious.
Actors are, by definition, people that perform The Thing Which Is Not True, and i struggle to think why a gay person should not be allowed to play a straight one, and vice versa. Portraying people of a different race is more complicated, mostly because it (usually, or most of the time for the examples we are talking about) a very visually apparent thing, and depicting people of other races in a 'comical' fashion has enormeous historical baggage (i.e. blackfacing, ministrel shows etc.) that renders the whole thing a very bad idea.
One could argue that even the thing about it being visually apparent is yet again loaded with bias and prejudice, or a predominantly western gaze - is it okay if a person that reads 'Asian' plays e.g. a Mongol for a historical drama? People from Mongolia, or Tadjikistan etc., could probably easily tell the difference, even if the typical western consumer could not if the actor was actually a Japanese person. Once you start engaging these questions in earnest you run the risk of doing that which you actually set out to subvert, i.e. rigidly categorizing people by their race, heritage and origin.
On the subject of where does it "end" in a sense I don't think it does really. Groups that are healthy and doing well should always look to be expanding and growing; be that at the local level just to have more gamers or perhaps raise enough in member subs for better facilities and such; to the company level where its very much more customers and more income.
I think the key point is reached when you aren't considering specific marketing for different markets as an exception to normal thinking/practice
I think then it comes down to looking at the larger picture and seeing the diversity at things like conventions, shows, larger competitive events and such. Ergo situations where local populations have less impact and you should see greater diversity at a national level.
It is important to remember that advances have been made in terms of equality but by no means is it enough.
Take Salute over the weekend in London. The event had a Women in Wargaming pannel specifically to allow a voice to women within the hobby while at the same a notable hobbyist was derided and degraded by someone working the event when she entered her models into a competition. They didn't call for this staff member to be shamed or blacklisted but chose to talk about the incident to prove that even if the wider event was promoting inclusivity and diversity, the ground-level attitudes were still there.
That's the sort of thing diversity and inclusivity are there to fight against. Nobody is forcing people to refuse straight white people in favour of minorities in their hobby groups or forcing them to go to Pride or activist rallies. The fight is against bigots who are making efforts to wrongly exclude people from participating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 12:24:17
This raises a question from before: What would you consider perfect "diversity". If people from group A make up 20% of the population, should they make up 20% of any given group? If they don't, is that necessarily bad? What if, in the case of equity, you find out that Group A isn't underrepresented, they are overrepresented. You'll have a situation like with what happened at Google, where they did an internal audit for gender equity, got the reverse results they anticipated, and ended up giving a good portion of their male staff raises. They briefly caught some flak for it. And does diversity work both ways, or only one way? Should traditionally minority/female activities that have served as a haven for them feel pressure to be more inclusive?
Lot of questions here. I'll start from the top:
1) "perfect" diversity is the rare thing that isn't a result, it's a process. You can't, and shouldn't, force people into roles or deny people roles bases on their demographics. So diversity is about the process of how groups are selected, from childhood on to adulthood. Diversity isn't about making sure half of both truck drivers or nurses are male/female, but in making sure that young women that want to drive a truck, or young men that want to go into nursing, are equally as supported and welcomed as the opposite.
2) In practice, I would say that comparing any group to it's most common "feeder" group is a good proxy for the diversity of any given group. So, if about 20% of computer science degrees are awarded to women, and your company's programmers are only 5% women, you might want to look at your processes. I doubt, given gender and cultural impacts on personality, that jobs or roles would break strictly on demographic lines. More women will want to be kindergarten teachers, and more men will want to be Oil workers. OTOH, it's worth noting if the jobs or groups that disproportionately attract women or minorities are seen as less prestigious or are lower paying.
3) the google thing is interesting, because the top line is deeply, deeply misleading. Google found that women were generally paid more than men in certain jobs, but that's within a pay band. "Company officials acknowledged that it did not address whether women were hired at a lower pay grade than men with similar qualifications." this is my point from above: if women are paid slightly more, but consistently steered into lower pay bands... that's really bad.
4) as for havens, are they havens by choice, or be necessity? Male nurses have increased from 7% in 2008 to 13% in 2021, so in a way it's already happening. Of course, male nurses make more than female nurses....
I've been on the receiving end of the "you're ruing our group by being here" mentality. Men volunteering for a traditionally female roles with children face particularly harsh backlash from women. Not to mention a book club/wine tasting group I tried to join. Apparently they thought it was unnecessary to put on the fliers that it was women-only.
This is all true and well documented. A college buddy is a stay at home dad, and he catches a ton of stink eye. the Girl Scouts are (or were) notorious for refusing male help. And a woman's wine tasting/book club is probably more invested in staying single sex than a fantasy football league!
There's this weird thought in our culture that finds these issues of exclusion of the majority to be problematic. a lot of liberals want to ignore racism by racial minorities, while a lot of conservatives take great glee in pointing it out. the reality is that women and people of color are people, just like white dudes, and a lot of people prefer to socialize with groups with which they share gender, sexual, racial, religious, or ethnic bonds. I actually have no problem with purely social groups that are single sex. I was in a fraternity in college, and I've attended men only support group meetings.
If you're arguing that some people want their warhammer club to be "no girls allowed," I'm not bothered by that. I'm married and I want my time with the boys. You can play with whoever you want to play with. I just think the community in general should be more inclusive.
Another issue is stereotypes. Specifically, those nerds out there who don't seem to know what bathing, or deodorant is. I shouldn't really need to expound on that idea.
That is definitely a type.
Maybe there should be a little delineation of age groups for one. A cover fee, were adults over 25 (no offense youngins) can get together and have a beverage or two with their games. I mean it's not like this isn't a thing when it comes to pool, cards, LAN centers, and even bookstores.
Another issue is stereotypes. Specifically, those nerds out there who don't seem to know what bathing, or deodorant is. I shouldn't really need to expound on that idea.
That is definitely a type.
Maybe there should be a little delineation of age groups for one. A cover fee, were adults over 25 (no offense youngins) can get together and have a beverage or two with their games. I mean it's not like this isn't a thing when it comes to pool, cards, LAN centers, and even bookstores.
I think food and drink provision is slowly becoming more essential if purely to help generate revenue to keep the lights on.
Alcohol can complicate matters because you have to pay for a licence, get inspected and it very much is adults only. Which is fine if you're a really popular place already, but many stores likely want to keep things as open as they can to get maximum player numbers up. Plus they might not want the hassle of the alcoholic drink provision.
That said if they pair up with a restaurant or similar chain it might come bundled in with that.
Another issue is stereotypes. Specifically, those nerds out there who don't seem to know what bathing, or deodorant is. I shouldn't really need to expound on that idea.
That is definitely a type.
Maybe there should be a little delineation of age groups for one. A cover fee, were adults over 25 (no offense youngins) can get together and have a beverage or two with their games. I mean it's not like this isn't a thing when it comes to pool, cards, LAN centers, and even bookstores.
I mean, there's nothing stopping you or anybody else from setting up a group specifically for old non-stinkies...
If you're arguing that some people want their warhammer club to be "no girls allowed," I'm not bothered by that. I'm married and I want my time with the boys. You can play with whoever you want to play with. I just think the community in general should be more inclusive.
I think it depends on how you mean this. A group of friends playing together is one thing, but a group open to new members creating an arbitrary boys only filter creates an unnecessary barrier to entry for already underrepresented demographics. Like a girl who wants to play Warhammer is free to do so if she can find enough girls who also want to play Warhammer? There's no reason to make it harder than it already is to get involved in the hobby. If you play the game, you're one of the boys regardless of whether or not you're a boy. When someone brings their girlfriend, they are one of the boys and if that relationship doesn't work out and they still want to play, their friendship is just as welcome as anyone else.
NinthMusketeer wrote: A society isn't past its diversity issues until it normalizes seeking diversity not because it is good but because it is better. Which is to say, rather than seeking diversity because it is the 'right thing to do' society would be seeking diversity because diverse groups are more effective.
Put differently, people need to transition from seeing their differences as flaws to seeing their differences as assets.
I'd argue that thinking of 'differences as assets' is part of the problem, that the differences are a commodity that lead to an advantage or disadvantage. I'd rather than people think of differences as unimportant, at the same level as wearing a grey shirt or having a buffalo wings rather than honey glazed. Unremarkable and unimportant, and so not something kick people down for.
Which would be good, except there's a very large portion of society that DOES see differences as a thing to kick people for. Recognizing differences not only helps in that diverse perspectives provide new and creative ways to approach problems that you might otherwise not know are there, but lets society better serve groups that are disadvantaged by structural (and plain ol') racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.. "Race blindness" does nothing but advantage racists.
I'm well aware of the former. I'm objecting to 'difference as assets' because I've had real life interactions with people who described their admiration for farm equipment in terms of how many people with darker skin it could replace. Except it wasn't phrased that kindly (you can probably fill in the word that was actually used).
With that context, does it explain why 'differences as assets' and 'effectiveness' squicks me the hell out?
So I'm a few pages late, but just wanted to chime in here and further explain my position (in hindsight I obviously did not communicate well). I do not mean to immediately assume every difference is inherently good, nor do I advocate for actively 'noticing' differences which are more or less meaningless. What I mean is flipping the paradigm from where people have an inherent negative reaction towards differences as a bad thing for no other reason than because they are different, and need to be overwhelmingly proven otherwise to accept such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 23:40:17
If you're arguing that some people want their warhammer club to be "no girls allowed," I'm not bothered by that. I'm married and I want my time with the boys. You can play with whoever you want to play with. I just think the community in general should be more inclusive.
I think it depends on how you mean this. A group of friends playing together is one thing, but a group open to new members creating an arbitrary boys only filter creates an unnecessary barrier to entry for already underrepresented demographics. Like a girl who wants to play Warhammer is free to do so if she can find enough girls who also want to play Warhammer? There's no reason to make it harder than it already is to get involved in the hobby. If you play the game, you're one of the boys regardless of whether or not you're a boy. When someone brings their girlfriend, they are one of the boys and if that relationship doesn't work out and they still want to play, their friendship is just as welcome as anyone else.
I think its a complicated issue.
On the one hand no one generally has issue with clubs having age restrictions. Even if the hobby or event has no legal barriers (eg you are not making an alcoholic drinking club for 8 year olds) there are still age boundaries setup. Many major sports and events even build this into escalating age tiers and structures that often build into adult restricted groups later on. No one starts shouting "agism" or "agist" around and in general any well supported activity can support such a grouping.
Gender is another common one though a bit more complex because historically it was used to fully exclude certain genders from certain hobbies/groups/activities outright.
And yet as noted above, sometimes you do just want a "guys night out" and such. Heck no one really complains about Stag and Hen nights as a concept and modern takes are free to be taken or left - you don't have to have such parties and you don't have to stick to fixed gender groups if you don't want too; but its there as a socially accepted option.
Like likes like at times and there are valid reasons why people might want to be part of a group that has a common variable between them - be that age, gender, religion etc...
Now it gets more tricky because when you deal with hobbies/interests with very restricted uptake; where many towns might only have one or maybe two groups. Then such niche groupings can be harmful. If the only group in your area is adults only that's causing exclusion; if its guys only then its causing exclusion. Even if those who attend have no problem with those excluded groups being part of the activity in general.
It's here such niche division can be harmful and damaging.
So its tricky and scale and size of support for an activity 100% factors into this.
It's also easier to argue for greater group diversity in general, there are a lot of pros to it. Furthermore, many times those pros can outweigh the benefits of like-seeking-like
Finally sometimes the barriers are hazy and might simply be extensions of a lack of cultural diverse awareness. Thus breaking down and opening up to more diverse backgrounds results in breaking those barriers and reaching a point where like-seeking-like broadens what they define and see as a "like" kind.
So we've had a few LAN centers over the years, and they tend to be the closest thing I can think of where there would be a mix of ages, other than pool halls with arcades. Where you still have to be an adult (21 or older) to sit at the bar and/or order drinks.
I imagine something like GameWorks or Dave&Busters, yet toned down a bit for tabletop and LAN tourneys or at least providing a separate area that wouldn't be distracted by the arcades.
It was something I used wish for, less so now, but if one came to town, I would definitely check it out.
Lord Damocles wrote: Presumably the 1930s-German-Enthusiasts themed army was the first time visiting the particular GW in question - otherwise the player would have been asked to not bring it previously.
So if the GW store asked someone to not bring their [potentially] problematic army at the earliest opportunity. I don't see what more GW could have done there.
Also, isn't the depiction of backwards swastikas illegal in Germany?
Apologies, that original comment was made late at night and the proverbial "train had left the station" before all passengers were aboard (as in, I forgot where I was going with why I brought up those examples).
Basically, I brought up the 1930s German enthusiast, and the hyper-realistic modeller as examples because of the way they stood out to me. It isn't so much that they made those armies. One was of dubious content, and the other was, while exceedingly well executed (I took a good look at the army before the game finished. It was amazingly well sculpted and painted. Like, I would not be surprised in the least if that person had won a Golden Daemon or two).
It was that those individuals thought that this public game store was a great place to bring their army in. And obviously a good store manager would do what that store manager did: properly ensure that the customer is informed that that specific army will not be tolerated in the store. I've been to other game shops where such an action may or may not have taken place. And it's those shops, IMHO, that hinder diversity within the hobby.
That said, I think every fandom across all walks of life get those kinds of fans. Whether its football fans with a creepy intense fan worship of Leo Messi, an overly attentive anime weeb, the car badge guys (ya know, die hard ford or chevy guys), you'll invariably run into some fans who take things to very uncomfortable levels. The important thing for GW, and various store owners, is to ensure that THEY are not the ones creating or fostering that. YA know, its that sort of view that meant that the last GW shop I was a regular at, we had hard and fast rules of what could and could not be discussed at the hobby table, because certain topics in the wrong setting will kill a community.
On age restrictions for clubs? There can be good reason for that.
For instance, my former local club (I moved away) used to meet in first a Pub, then a Working Men’s Club. Hence they had an 18+ membership requirement by necessity.
They latterly moved to a church hall type place. There, less reason to need 18+. Except…..Safeguarding. Even GW Staff need a background check, just in case. Because I think we can all agree that’s very much a realm of Better Safe Than Sorry.
There’s also the not entirely unreasonable argument that many of us play to relax and unwind. A bit of camaraderie and escape from reality. I for one would prefer not to have kids knocking about.
But gender segregation there feels archaic and unnecessary. Sure a Boys Night Out/Weekend Away isn’t a problem. Indeed such events can be very good for you, especially as you age and may want to recapture a bit of the glory days. But a Boys Only Club just feels….dated, and based on no solid argument.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
But gender segregation there feels archaic and unnecessary. Sure a Boys Night Out/Weekend Away isn’t a problem. Indeed such events can be very good for you, But a Boys Only Club just feels….dated, and based on no solid argument.
Yeah, that's how I felt about the book/wine club I wasn't allowed to join.
Adeptekon wrote: Now this is an honest question, I'm totally ignorant here, but why do I think "Turkic" inspired Ghazghkull, and Uruk (same with Tolkien) for Uruk the Sumerian city?
I apologize for having fond memories of my Oriental Adventures.
Much of the ork-stuff is taken from Tolkien, especially stuff like names and words, and there are indeed hints and arguments that Tolkien constructed the Black Tongue modelled on the then-recently decyphered Hurrian language, which is from Mesopotamia and related to modern-day Turkish, and shares important grammatic structures with it.
But gender segregation there feels archaic and unnecessary. Sure a Boys Night Out/Weekend Away isn’t a problem. Indeed such events can be very good for you, But a Boys Only Club just feels….dated, and based on no solid argument.
Yeah, that's how I felt about the book/wine club I wasn't allowed to join.
let me tell you, if you think making people hire people they don't want to hire is tough, try making people hang out with people they don't want to.
